WTP Lawsuit Dismissed

[David Merrill]

The act of attornment (hiring power of attorney, even representing yourself) renders allocution empty. Some of you may know what I am saying. And I believe especially B. Rookard and Shoonra know just what I am saying.

Therefore the "courts" are non-judicial collection agents for the bankruptcy proceedings and even though a man can by law and code only be taxed on profit and gain (not the actual wages and compensation but dividends etc.), he is attorned by having representation into a domain where he is treated chattel for the bank note called birth certificate!

I love you attorney types. You teach so much in a single blurt.


Regards,

David Merrill.


Have a look: http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread.php?p=42080

So I will start by framing some contextual boundaries. There was an encroachment of bankruptcy upon the general common law in 1938. Since 1938 followed 1933 when a bankruptcy was declared in the States and United States, this brought about an era in which the federal common law began looking like competent common law (out in the States). Therefore be wary of these attorney types misguiding you Readers into thinking that rulings and opinions "in the courts" need to be cited to prove out the truth. Rulings and opinions in the courts since 1938 only prove the United States is in receivership. They are published in private copyrighted annotations to code.

So be wary:

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by B Rookard

What?

A person who has a vested interest in his salary is somebody to whom the rights to the salary have come to fruition.

To vest is to have the right to the salary, property, economic benefit, etc. It's not the same as "investing" - as in putting the salary in the frickin' stock market or something.

Egads.

I don't know what definition of "vesting" you're using ... but it aint the one everyone else uses.

Maybe you mean putting on a sleeveless garment. But who knows. Or maybe you're just making up a definition.

Maybe you should read the sentence where they talk about the vesting of income ... it merely means that point at which he had the right to receive it.

And try as you might, the court clearly said that there was no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them.

Yes I know what vested means. When you work for someone and in a contract with the employer it is stated that after a certain amount of time you have been vested you will receive a salary at retirement. It may be in the form of a 401K or other type of retirement plan. You may need to invest some of your earnings (source) in it or may not. The company may invest all that is in it. Whatever amount that is the "gain" or "profit" from that that is vested (matured) is the income. If you invested all that is in the plan and it was your earnings (labor) then that portion that is interest only ("gain" or "profit") is taxable, but only that portion and not the original investment in it if it was all from your labor. If all has been invested by the company then all of it would be considered gain as it came from them entirely and not from your labor. Many people receive a salary based on this type of vesting (completion of time requirement at retirement). The only part that is taxable is the realized "gain" of "profit" from it (the increase). Just as Ice has rightly said, income is derived from labor (source) and income is not the source itself, but the increase or "gain" form the investment of it is. For someone that says he understands, I really wonder sometimes whether you really do. I hope I have put in a way that it is now understandable to you. If not I will try again.

[Ice]

Here is one of the more recent of the previous threads in regards the tax issue that I mentioned. There are several more that contain much information ... from both sides of the controversy.

Here is another, one of which B Rookard is lacking in response.

I am still quite busy and still do not have sufficient time to apply to this thread. Besides, there are many other threads that contain my claims in regards this issue and those claims can be addressed within those threads. It is my firm belief that this thread will eventually become idle when the so******tic tax advocates cannot provide proof of claim or paint themselves into a corner of contradiction.

I take my leave as I have much more important work to accomplish.

Ice

[logos]

Perhaps it's possible both viewpoints are correct from different standpoints.

I agree laboring for remuneration is an even exchange IF the living man is remunerated. However, who's name is on the paycheck, for example? The last time I looked the STRAWMAN was the payee. Looking at the STRAWMAN'S activities one can say what it received IS pure gain as it has provided nothing in exchange for the $$$ it received via that paycheck--a consequence of the living man's oh-so generously provided labor energy, which when viewed from the man's standpoint could be construed as having been expended into a black hole.

Matrix to Living Soul: Thanks--sucker!

Could the reality of it really be this bad?

[Shoonra]

"An encroachment of bankruptcy"?! No, the United States govt did not declare bankruptcy in 1933 or any other time. Sure, some politicians may have thrown the word around, but there was no petition for discharge of debts filed in any court anywhere. In fact, there is no legal method for the federal govt itself to declare bankruptcy. There isn't even a method for a state govt to declare itself bankrupt, and only fairly recently did Congress make provision for cities and towns to go into bankruptcy.

IF the US govt had actually declared bankruptcy -- not just used the word in political speeches -- there would have to be a filing in an appropriate federal court, notification of all interested persons, etc., .... and the entire process would be finished, one way or another, within a few years and maybe within one year. So even if this fantastic event had ever taken place, the US govt is not in bankruptcy now.